Has it ever occurred to you that Apple already thought this out?

Some of these threads are getting ridiculous. None of us have used this device and only had a week to think about it. Apple has put more thought into it than all of us combined.

1. Bezel too thick

The bezel is that thick for a reason. They have obviously tested the device and felt it was necessary. Nobody here has held the device so we can't possibly know if a thinner bezel would be harder to hold.

2. No camera

They just didn't think it was usable enough for the form factor. They have a camera in the nano so this is not a cost issue. Deliberately holding it back for Rev B also makes no sense because they can't afford to lose sales now. Rev B will have much more compelling advancements to get people to upgrade.

3. No multi-tasking

I'm confident 4.0 will have some form of controlled multi-tasking. This is purely a performance issue. There is no financial incentive for Apple to disable multi-tasking.

4. No flash

Apple honestly believes flash is crap. Again, there is no financial incentive to disable flash. It's not about forcing people to buy from iTunes. Even with flash enabled, you won't be able to watch Hulu. Hulu will never make an iPhone app because they block ALL mobile devices. You can ONLY watch Hulu on a laptop or desktop and if Hulu knew how to block laptops too, they would. Hulu was made to deter people from going to torrents. It was a necessary evil for the networks but they still prefer people to watch shows on TV.

5. Aspect-ratio

Again, not a cost issue. A widescreen display would actually be cheaper as they are more widely produced these days. Some tasks (like video) would benefit from a wider display. Some tasks would not. For a general purpose device, there needs to be a compromise. The iPad also has a better resolution than netbooks and high pixel density than MacBooks.

I don't pretend to know why they made all the decisions they made, but I know they had the time to think all this out.

Some of these threads are getting ridiculous. None of us have used this device and only had a week to think about it. Apple has put more thought into it than all of us combined.

1. Bezel too thick

The bezel is that thick for a reason. They have obviously tested the device and felt it was necessary. Nobody here has held the device so we can't possibly know if a thinner bezel would be harder to hold.

2. No camera

They just didn't think it was usable enough for the form factor. They have a camera in the nano so this is not a cost issue. Deliberately holding it back for Rev B also makes no sense because they can't afford to lose sales now. Rev B will have much more compelling advancements to get people to upgrade.

3. No multi-tasking

I'm confident 4.0 will have some form of controlled multi-tasking. This is purely a performance issue. There is no financial incentive for Apple to disable multi-tasking.

4. No flash

Apple honestly believes flash is crap. Again, there is no financial incentive to disable flash. It's not about forcing people to buy from iTunes. Even with flash enabled, you won't be able to watch Hulu. Hulu will never make an iPhone app because they block ALL mobile devices. You can ONLY watch Hulu on a laptop or desktop and if Hulu knew how to block laptops too, they would. Hulu was made to deter people from going to torrents. It was a necessary evil for the networks but they still prefer people to watch shows on TV.

5. Aspect-ratio

Again, not a cost issue. A widescreen display would actually be cheaper as they are more widely produced these days. Some tasks (like video) would benefit from a wider display. Some tasks would not. For a general purpose device, there needs to be a compromise. The iPad also has a better resolution than netbooks and high pixel density than MacBooks.

I don't pretend to know why they made all the decisions they made, but I know they had the time to think all this out.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

I'm tired of the whiny threads too. There is nothing wrong with speculating about the future, but complaining about the present fixes nothing.

Some of these threads are getting ridiculous. None of us have used this device and only had a week to think about it. Apple has put more thought into it than all of us combined.

1. Bezel too thick

The bezel is that thick for a reason. They have obviously tested the device and felt it was necessary. Nobody here has held the device so we can't possibly know if a thinner bezel would be harder to hold.

2. No camera

They just didn't think it was usable enough for the form factor. They have a camera in the nano so this is not a cost issue. Deliberately holding it back for Rev B also makes no sense because they can't afford to lose sales now. Rev B will have much more compelling advancements to get people to upgrade.

3. No multi-tasking

I'm confident 4.0 will have some form of controlled multi-tasking. This is purely a performance issue. There is no financial incentive for Apple to disable multi-tasking.

4. No flash

Apple honestly believes flash is crap. Again, there is no financial incentive to disable flash. It's not about forcing people to buy from iTunes. Even with flash enabled, you won't be able to watch Hulu. Hulu will never make an iPhone app because they block ALL mobile devices. You can ONLY watch Hulu on a laptop or desktop and if Hulu knew how to block laptops too, they would. Hulu was made to deter people from going to torrents. It was a necessary evil for the networks but they still prefer people to watch shows on TV.

5. Aspect-ratio

Again, not a cost issue. A widescreen display would actually be cheaper as they are more widely produced these days. Some tasks (like video) would benefit from a wider display. Some tasks would not. For a general purpose device, there needs to be a compromise. The iPad also has a better resolution than netbooks and high pixel density than MacBooks.

I don't pretend to know why they made all the decisions they made, but I know they had the time to think all this out.

Click to expand...

Apple doesn't want flash because users could circumvent the Appstore--if Flash was on the iphone/Touch/iPad, users could play Flash based games instead of buying them from Apple. I don't expect them to ever relent on Flash--it would upset their revenue stream. The KNOW people will buy their Flash-less products, so there's zero incentive for them to permit Flash.

Apple doesn't want flash because users could circumvent the Appstore--if Flash was on the iphone/Touch/iPad, users could play Flash based games instead of buying them from Apple. I don't expect them to ever relent on Flash--it would upset their revenue stream. The KNOW people will buy their Flash-less products, so there's zero incentive for them to permit Flash.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely accurate. Also that argument about Hulu wanting to block their site on laptops is silly.

Apple doesn't want flash because users could circumvent the Appstore--if Flash was on the iphone/Touch/iPad, users could play Flash based games instead of buying them from Apple. I don't expect them to ever relent on Flash--it would upset their revenue stream. The KNOW people will buy their Flash-less products, so there's zero incentive for them to permit Flash.

Click to expand...

I'd agree with you if there wasn't a plethora of games available for free in the App store. How many paid flash based games are out there?

This is absolutely accurate. Also that argument about Hulu wanting to block their site on laptops is silly.

Click to expand...

Not really. I don't think Hulu would block laptops given the options, but they block cell phoens already so there's NO reason to think that if the iPhone/iPod/iPad had Flash they wouldn't block it too.

Apple doesn't want flash because users could circumvent the Appstore--if Flash was on the iphone/Touch/iPad, users could play Flash based games instead of buying them from Apple. I don't expect them to ever relent on Flash--it would upset their revenue stream.

Click to expand...

No, this has zero to do with revenues or App Store. The reason is simple - SJ hates Adobe and their technologies. Technologically speaking, SJ thinks Flash shouldn't exist. So he is just sticking it to them.

Revenues wise, Apple is most likely taking a loss here, as there are surely people who won't use Apple's mobile products because of lack of Flash. In a weird way, I can actually respect Apple's stance on this. There aren't many companies that do things on principle, even if it may hurt their immediate bottom line.

I have learned to respect Apple's development process and I expect if they did something they did it for a reason. if there is no camera, then I have a good idea that they have tested the idea of a camera and it did not work.

With the bezel, this came to be through actual testing. When they didn't launch the iPhone with copy and paste it wasn't because nobody at Apple ever considered the idea, it is just that they could never get a suitable resolution.

Much more than most companies they have more patience when it comes to waiting for the right solution over the quick solution.

So when someone mentions some short-coming or potential issue or problem, I feel pretty comfortable in believing Apple also probably considered that in their development process and for whatever reason could not or would not do it at the time.

It does not mean they don't end up dismissing things that they later come up with a better way to do and ultimately implement. However to think they just never thought of basic considerations at all is a bit insulting.

No, this has zero to do with revenues or App Store. The reason is simple - SJ hates Adobe and their technologies. Technologically speaking, SJ thinks Flash shouldn't exist. So he is just sticking it to them.

Revenues wise, Apple is most likely taking a loss here, as there are surely people who won't use Apple's mobile products because of lack of Flash. In a weird way, I can actually respect Apple's stance on this. There aren't many companies that do things on principle, even if it may hurt their immediate bottom line.

Click to expand...

The only people who are generally going to notice are us nerd types. Apple won't feel even a tickle of loss due to lack of Flash, just because it's Apple.

And to say Steve Jobs hates ADOBE and their TECHNOLOGIES is kind of harsh, as he knows that clearly Photoshop on a Mac is a incredible piece of software, as well as their other creative products.

It does not mean they don't end up dismissing things that they later come up with a better way to do and ultimately implement. However to think they just never thought of basic considerations at all is a bit insulting.

Click to expand...

Agreed. They could be a bit more open about explaining their decisions, though. For instance, lots of people are complaining about the thick bezel. Steve Jobs could have thrown in a line like "nice thick bezel here, gives you a secure, comfortable grip," during his presentation.

I have learned to respect Apple's development process and I expect if they did something they did it for a reason. if there is no camera, then I have a good idea that they have tested the idea of a camera and it did not work.

With the bezel, this came to be through actual testing. When they didn't launch the iPhone with copy and paste it wasn't because nobody at Apple ever considered the idea, it is just that they could never get a suitable resolution.

Much more than most companies they have more patience when it comes to waiting for the right solution over the quick solution.

So when someone mentions some short-coming or potential issue or problem, I feel pretty comfortable in believing Apple also probably considered that in their development process and for whatever reason could not or would not do it at the time.

It does not mean they don't end up dismissing things that they later come up with a better way to do and ultimately implement. However to think they just never thought of basic considerations at all is a bit insulting.

Click to expand...

I think thats about spot on Apple may get ridiculed by the press/media/analysts n such but they do know how to make a specific set of products work (see macs>iPhone>iPod> even onto the apple TV dare i say it!) it all works together to give you the user the best looking, and most reliable products

I don't buy the whole Apple is blocking Flash because of the appstore argument. Games can be made using the HTML5 canvas tag and javascript. Granted they aren't on Flash level but as soon as an editor comes out they will be. There are already some working HTML5 emulators like JSNES that are out and could run on the tablet.

There is no question Apple has put considerable thought behind the iPad. Unfortunately it is easy for designers to be "too close" to a project to see past the first decent UI/hardware specs and still be willing to change just because a few online forums have other ideas. I see this with designers every semester. Every one of them "knows" they have the best ideas for the project. It's the same reason not every movie is a blockbuster. Every car is not "Best Car of the Year". Etc..

The iPad is trying to crack open a market that to this date hasn't existed. Others have tried. Apple might have hit the nail on the head with the first swing, but it's not like the other manufacturers of tablets didn't also think their products were great.

The fun part is that with time we will know how well they did. If it sells well Steve will announce the sales numbers in public. If it doesn't sell well he won't be mentioning it much in the future. Apple TV, anyone?

Also that argument about Hulu wanting to block their site on laptops is silly.

Click to expand...

You clearly have no understanding of why Hulu exists at all. Even the people who created Hulu (NBC, Fox, ABC) hates the very idea of it. Getting a viewer to watch a show on television is much much more profitable. They were forced to create a website in hopes it would lessen torrent downloads.

Most people only download torrents at home. Any device you can take outside the home (including laptops) does not help them.

For example: I'm at home. I want to watch last week's episode of 24. If Hulu didn't exist, I would just download a torrent. Instead of watching no commercials, I watch 2 minutes of commercials. Better than nothing so Hulu saved them some money. But if I watched it on TV, I would've watched 18 minutes of commercials.

Now, say I'm at the coffee shop on my laptop/iPad/iPhone/other mobile device with my 3G connection. I'm less likely to download a torrent in public so having Hulu available saves them nothing. Having your shows available outside your home also makes it MORE convenient than television and they will lose television viewers.

If everyone stops watching TV and switches to Hulu, your favorite shows wouldn't exist because there is very little revenue there compared to live TV ads.

I have learned to respect Apple's development process and I expect if they did something they did it for a reason. if there is no camera, then I have a good idea that they have tested the idea of a camera and it did not work.

With the bezel, this came to be through actual testing. When they didn't launch the iPhone with copy and paste it wasn't because nobody at Apple ever considered the idea, it is just that they could never get a suitable resolution.

Much more than most companies they have more patience when it comes to waiting for the right solution over the quick solution.

So when someone mentions some short-coming or potential issue or problem, I feel pretty comfortable in believing Apple also probably considered that in their development process and for whatever reason could not or would not do it at the time.

It does not mean they don't end up dismissing things that they later come up with a better way to do and ultimately implement. However to think they just never thought of basic considerations at all is a bit insulting.

Good post op. Balanced and well argued. May I just disagree on the camera issue, I think it's hardware/supply related, and we might see one in the future, maybe even when the ipad is launched.

I also like to point out how apple has done everything possible to keep the cost down as much as they can leveraging their huge power on flash supplies, their exclusive deals with lg (to get such a great led ips display), their custom made brand new cpu (most probably arm, yet highly customised) and their huge expertise and mark leverage on battery technology. With all that and the whole app store ecosystem, they have managed to hoist everyone on their own petard.

Because it's very unlikely anyone will be able to come up with such a cheap device, with such high specs, build quality AND with a 100,000 applications, custom made touch office applications in pages, keynote and numbers.

Everyone was harping merrily along the apple tax blah blah, and here comes apple and upstages everyone by making their device very very good value. The only point were everyone was sure they could knock apple down again, price.

Much more than most companies they have more patience when it comes to waiting for the right solution over the quick solution.

Click to expand...

Excellent, excellent point, which you don't hear often. This is my view too. And this is largely dependant on Steve Jobs vast experience in implementing technology. When apple does something they try to make sure they implement it in the best possible way, or none at all. In stark contrast with microsoft's large announcements and proclamations strategy (see vapourware) or their half baked ideas that ultimately won't work. Steve's mantra is less is more, simpler is better, make something work seamlessly don't just drown it in options, that aren't really options at all.

Apple doesn't want flash because users could circumvent the Appstore--if Flash was on the iphone/Touch/iPad, users could play Flash based games instead of buying them from Apple. I don't expect them to ever relent on Flash--it would upset their revenue stream. The KNOW people will buy their Flash-less products, so there's zero incentive for them to permit Flash.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Apple is still a hardware company that makes almost all of its money selling hardware. They would never sacrifice hardware sales to make a little more in App sales. Not having flash will cost them hardware sales and they wouldn't do it unless they absolutely feel flash will be detrimental to user experience.

Not really. I don't think Hulu would block laptops given the options, but they block cell phoens already so there's NO reason to think that if the iPhone/iPod/iPad had Flash they wouldn't block it too.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't have a single way to know if you were on a laptop or a desktop.

Wrong. Apple is still a hardware company that makes almost all of its money selling hardware. They would never sacrifice hardware sales to make a little more in App sales. Not having flash will cost them hardware sales and they wouldn't do it unless they absolutely feel flash will be detrimental to user experience.

The App Store exists to sell more hardware, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying this is the only reason why Apple refuses to support Flash, but buying apps that only work on Apple's mobile devices will make people less inclined to switch to other mobile devices. People used to change cell phones all the time and, w/the exception of 'power' Palm and BB users, I really didn't notice people sticking w/a cell phone 'family' the way they do w/the iPhone. Part of that is because Apple has a very good device in a very good echo system and part of it is because users have sunk so much extra money into the device they are reluctant to switch.

While Apple is still a hardware company at heart there are signs that they will protect their growing media & software distribution business. IMO the lack of Blu-ray support and the fact that the TV lacks DVR functionality are a couple of examples of Apple trying to keep users in Apple's walled garden. Things like BR and DVR functionality would only add value to Apple's hardware but they go head-to-head w/the iTunes Store.

Wrong. Apple is still a hardware company that makes almost all of its money selling hardware. They would never sacrifice hardware sales to make a little more in App sales. Not having flash will cost them hardware sales and they wouldn't do it unless they absolutely feel flash will be detrimental to user experience.

The App Store exists to sell more hardware, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

how is not having Flash "costing them sales"??? despite people belly aching about the lack of flash, folks keep right on buying the flash-less Apple products such as the iPhone and Touch. The iPad will sell millions, flash or no flash.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.